Referral System claims its first victim

[Streetwise]

I don't really think they should feel undermined either, any more than they felt undermined when the referral for run outs was brought in. But there seems to be some suggestion they are being undermined.
I don't see how they're undermined any more by a reversal than they are by the entire cricket-watching world seeing they've ballsed something up but there's nothing been done about it.

With the run outs the umpires call on the third umpire to make a decision, the umpires dont have a problem with that.

On the referrals the umpires are asked to make a decsion then the teams have a opening to question if the umpire made the right decision.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah but why that should necessarily upset them I don't know.

 

[Streetwise]

Yeah but why that should necessarily upset them I don't know.

I havent heard that any umpires are upset with it, I did read that the ICC has formally stated that Benson is going home due to ill health.

Why not make the referrals like the run outs where the umpire can say I'm not sure and pass it onto the third umpire. At the moment it does seem silly to ask the umpire to make a decision then allow the teams to challenge his decision. Under the current system howlers will still be part of the game because it does not improve the umpires ability to make the correct decision becuase the teams can run out of referrals, but with the run outs the umpires can pass it on to the third umpire anytime he wants without having a second guessing competition with the teams.

 

[Matt79]

This is probably close to my objection. The umpires, whether we like to admit it, perform a difficult job where one of the key requirements is the confidence to make a decision. Such confidence can easily be damaged. That confidence has been increasingly put under pressure by improved technology used in television coverage, eg super slo-mo, hawk eye, hotspot, that demonstrate in forensic detail when umpires get it wrong or not. Couple this, and the resultant media abuse and you have a problem.

My objection to this system is that a) if it succreds in raising standards it does so marginally and b) it doesn't relieve that pressure on umpires by giving them the option to ask for assistance, rather it creates an adversarial situation where players can openly call an umpires judgement into question, face to face, and inevitably sometimes be proven right. That's what I was getting at when I said the ICC had hung their representatives out to dry.

There's a problem with how things stand and this system will make it worse for many umpires rather than better IMO.

 

[Jono]

If it were not for referrals, Sri Lanka would not have defeated India in Sri Lanka last year.

The referral system works.

 

[Matt79]

aS it stands, the system certainly doesn't eliminate wrong decisions. Bollinger had an lbw turned down today that was out (precipitating a dickhead display from the twit) but couldn't refer the decision because the two referrals had already been used up.

 

[Jono]

If it reduces even 5% of incorrect decisions, it's better than not having the system in place.

 

[pasag]

I don't get what all the debate is about, it's a bit of a non-issue from my pov. I used to dislike it, now I reckon they're fine. If they're there good, if they're not good as well. Don't understand the fierce debate from either side.

 

[Matt79]

If it reduces even 5% of incorrect decisions, it's better than not having the system in place.

Not if it drives otherwise good umpires away.

 

[Jono]

Not if it drives otherwise good umpires away.

Do I give a crap about Benson (or any umpire)? No.

Do I care about the better teams winning series (i.e. Sri Lanka in 2008 were better than India, yet without the system they would not have won what was a terrific and very competitive series).

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Btw, it's a "Review" not a "Referral" as Doug Cowie explained during the NZ-PAK 1st Test.

Referral = going to the 3rd umpire before a decision is made.
Review = either team challenging the umpires decision after a decision.

[/pedantic]

 

[G.I.Joe]

As I see it, the umpire has basically pulled an Inzy.

 

[Matt79]

Do I give a crap about Benson (or any umpire)? No.

Do I care about the better teams winning series (i.e. Sri Lanka in 2008 were better than India, yet without the system they would not have won what was a terrific and very competitive series).

Is there some other pool of equally proficient umpires willing to do the job outside the current panel? No? Then maybe we should give a **** about the welfare of the current crop.

 

[Jono]

It's hardly the end of the world. Umpires have been doing this for hundreds of years, and they're paid more now than ever.

New umpires will come, who accept the review system and aren't stuck in the old times.

 

[Zinzan]

Honestly can't buy any argument against the referral system in general. The fact remains that on the occasions they have implemented it, the 'correct decision' rate has been 97% as opposed to 92% without, (under the definition of reasonable doubt).

 

[Athlai]

Is there some other pool of equally proficient umpires willing to do the job outside the current panel? No? Then maybe we should give a **** about the welfare of the current crop.

Rudi and a few other umpires have said they like it.

 

[Uppercut]

Is there some other pool of equally proficient umpires willing to do the job outside the current panel? No? Then maybe we should give a **** about the welfare of the current crop.

Isn't there? What information do you have about the standard of FC umpiring (or about their ambition) that the rest of us don't that leads you to make such a broad and all-encompassing statement about their ability?

I guess this is just one of those things- "well, there's no one else who's good enough and willing to do it!"- that will be accepted as gospel if it's repeated often enough. I'm not saying it's not true, but where is the evidence that leads you to make such a claim so conclusively?

 

[Matt79]

The fact that the ICC, despite citing fatigue and excessive travel, as significant concerns hasn't extended the elite panel further than the current number. The fact that they've passed over others in favour of the current crop. The fact that they've cited difficulties in getting enough good enough candidates for the role.

 

[silentstriker]

The fact that the ICC, despite citing fatigue and excessive travel, as significant concerns hasn't extended the elite panel further than the current number. The fact that they've passed over others in favour of the current crop. The fact that they've cited difficulties in getting enough good enough candidates for the role.

I'd much rather have worse umpires with review than better umpires without review.

Assuming it's a black and white choice like that, which I don't think it is.

 

[vic_orthdox]

One thing that I think is untenable is the suggestion that the umpires have the sole right of referral. If this is the case, then we have the case where they will end up referring everything, because the level of scrutiny will become ridiculous when they do make an error. And if they are supposed to be sure about their decision making, and confident in it, and then be proven wrong without the ability of a player to help correct that, I think would be a bigger problem than ones created by the current system.